I'm a little surprised that no one has responded to this yet.

I don't happen to have used exactly this approach, but I think it could make a lot of sense in the right circumstances.

The only thing I'd add is that if I was doing this, I would ask the people doing the task to contribute the do's and don'ts and then compile them together.  They are the ones that know and it gives them ownership.

People do get het up about this subject sometimes. As Brian said the legal requirements is that the findings of the risk assessment process are recorded and passed onto employees. There is no need to write pages of  method statements etc. Having looked at many RAMS over the years I am not surprised by the approach that that poster has taken. Obviously, some people can not tell a story and explain  what they are meant to be doing and trying to work out what these narratives mean can be challenging, so a list of does and don’t, fulfils the legal requirements BUT  in some H&S management systems, there an expectation that RAMS both describe the risk assessment process and how it gets to its conclusions. That is what drives the perceived need for detailed RAMS: a need to tick a box entitled: “Are the RAMS comprehensive and complete?”.

Of course there is a skill in completing such a piece of documentation, which means that the person completing the RAMS is able to comply  with the management system requirements  but not necessarily understand the actual underlying operational process nor convey it to the people actually do the work.

What means that the long detailed RAMS might be totally useless!   ​​​​​​​

So keep it simple...if they let you!

Edited by user 20 February 2023 11:24:48(UTC)  | Reason: ambiguous meaning

Think I am with Brian on this one - there is one overall scope to the task (the creation of shuttering) with many routes to assembling the required forming work.

You could as you say spend endless hours creating the variations on a theme or as you have attempted abstracted the common hazards and controls applicable to any alternative practice.

I would however avoid blanket PPE - it should be related to the task and the equipment being used after all the employer shoud have taken steps to eliminate or minimise the hazard.

Don't forget adjacent workers - no good the operator on the nail gun being protected if the chippies mate working at the side of them isn't wearing anything.

Follow the story line - first check tools/work area, conduct activity, clean up

bradaz, "War and Peace" is a good read but not for everyone, and particularly not when it comes to communicating occupational health and safety etc issues at the sharp end.

But you could break down Tolstoy's classic into Chapters.

So, you have a Chapter that deals with the "Site Rules". If there are some (hopefully, properly thought out and not simply chosen as a blanket approach) rules that apply across the entirety of the site (doesn't matter whether this is construction -as your thread implies - or any other sector), then you can communicate those.

Which means that those rules do NOT need to be in the information contained in relation to a specific part of the site or any specific activity done somewhere on site.

So Chapter 2 might be the groundworks - on top of the Site wide rules other things come in to play and need to be briefed to some but NOT all those working on site.

Then Chapter 3, 4 or 786 might deal with this shuttering operation. What is different to any other activity that falls within the overall topic of Groundworks?

If you can show that Worker A has been inducted in the Site Rules, has been briefed in the Groundworks top up requirements and briefed in the "significant factors" associated with the task specific risk assessment for constructing (and striking if in the same documentation) shuttering, you shouldn't have any real problems with the auditor (even if of the tick box variety of auditor).

...and to paraphrase what others have said the workers themselves probably know best as to what way of communicating will work for them.